The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejo Parella[edit]

Alejo Parella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Afd diff - other article was prodded. No additional information indicates why this article needs to be deleted. However, there is a limited assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• nothing I can see here screams notability to me. Lack of sources. I'm really, really unimpressed with pages that link to myspace pages. No page about him in Spanish, means to me that his native Argentina hasn't discovered his genius either, thus not notable at home. So, I guess update to show an amount of previosuly undemonstrated notability beyond just having done some things, and bring the wording up to standard, or delete. Kripto 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Doesn't quite cut it against WP:MUSIC. If any of the entirely unreferenced text is accurate, he is a bit more than just another MySpace nobody, but I'm not sure that there is enough here to save it. Adrian M. H. 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the twelve criterias in WP:Music is met. Delete.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Peacent 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLSA[edit]

CLSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed for discussion after overturn at deletion review. Anas ^talk? 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. this looks like an ad. Kripto 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. As author of the article, I understand it's my responsibility to find online sources to document this company's notability. I will do that, as someone else kindly did for the article on CLSA's recently deceased co-founder, Gary Coull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnome84 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 June 2007
  • Was it really "someone else" who added those sources? (Or created that article?) —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article asserts notability and appears to be sourced. It now needs severe cleanup. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable as a subsidiary of Credit Agricole.(Pls note that I work for one of their competitors in Hong Kong). --JuntungWu 10:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs clean-up and not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Andre (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Peacent 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hijo de la Luna[edit]

Hijo de la Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not about the actual song, is more about the urban legend the song is related to. An article must be created for both or deleted. The article is written in an unclear language and with bad links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapmt (talk • contribs)

• Speedy keep. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. It's already tagged with ((cleanup)); being poorly written is not a reason for deletion. Also, don't forget to sign your posts, especially Deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Notability as a #1 hit in Germany is sufficient. Being "more about" the wrong thing is a content dispute better suited for the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• as a page about German folklore turned into a song, it's worth a keep. The language needs cleanup. Kripto 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm from Germany, sorry for my bad english. If it's too bad, use the human resources to clean it up and not for this discussion. Just my 50 cents. And - it's about a spanish story, not a german. Hybscher 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Hijo de la Luna is a Spanish song about an old Spanish legend, not German. The song was written by Jose María Cano and performed by Mecano, a famous band in Spanish-speaking countries. The reason I propose deletion is because I take care of the article about the musical called Hoy No Me Puedo Levantar (I Can't Wake Up Today), where the hits of Mecano are performed and where this song belongs (Act II). If you want to keep this article, please use information to talk about the actual song and create another article about the myth; or specify in this article the origins of the song but concentrate in Mecano, because that is the main core of the article.

The article doesn't say it's a German song. It says it was a hit in Germany. There's a difference. Nerwen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article hasn't been up that long. I'd say give it a chance. Nerwen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep per above comments. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Redirect or merge are possibilities but should be discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved if this is to happen. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I understand that when the page was protected, it was a redirect. However, the edit warring is over whether or not this page should be a redirect or an article. The article in question is contained in this revision link. The people involved in this argument should present their views; I'm just offering this as a compromise. No vote. (messedrocker • talk) 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't intend to work on the article myself, as it's not my speciality or area of interest, but the topic is clearly notable and well-documented by numerous reliable sources. The article is a spinoff of House demolition, which was originally focused entirely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I completely rewrote the House demolition article on 17 June, giving it a much wider scope and perspective (while still briefly mentioning the I-P aspect). The rewrite was broadly welcomed (I intend to nominate it for FA status in the near future at the suggestion of Raul654). However, my actions in refocusing and expanding the article away from the I-P issue were challenged by another user on the talk page. In response, I suggested creating a spinoff article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a way of covering this particular issue (per Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). The topic is both notable and well-documented - the volume of documentation on house demolition in I-P actually caused me problems when researching House demolition, in that there was so much that it swamped my efforts to find other examples. (Google Books, for instance, returns over 600 separate works discussing the topic in relation to the I-P conflict; there are over 800,000 Google web hits and nearly 9,000 Google News hits on the same search terms.) I purposefully avoided adding this huge mass of content to House demolition, as it would have grossly imbalanced the article. The spinoff was duly created by Abu ali on 23 June. On 29 June Jayjg and SlimVirgin began repeatedly tag-teaming to blank the article and redirect it to House demolition, without consensus or prior discussion and declining to take it to AfD as policy requires. I have therefore requested an AfD on the article so that the wider community can discuss whether it should exist in the first place and if so, what form it should take. -- ChrisO 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've never seen this article before now, and the last version before redirection seems to be well-referenced and generally NPOV. Even if it could stand some improvement, I think the topic is notable and it should be possible to get an even better article from the references provided as well as ongoing media coverage and attention by activist groups. As an aside, excellent work, ChrisO; house demolition probably has the wrong title (something including punitive might be more appropriate), but it's a very good article right now. There's room for two. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This looks like a WP:POINT on ChrisO's behalf. He has written: "I've had the article AfD'd as a means of stimulating input from the wider community ..." [9] and " ... I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... I've brought the matter to the attention of the wider community" (emphasis added). [10] First, that's not what AfD is for. What we discuss here is whether to delete the title, and no one has suggested it be deleted. What is being disputed is whether the material about Israel belongs on the main page about house demolition, or on a subpage. Several editors (on both sides of the political divide) believe it belongs on the main page, because hiving off material to a subpage looks both like the creation of an attack page about Israel, and an attempt to hide the material in a corner of its own. If the pages get too large to accommodate everything, then subpages are fine, but that's not the case at the moment. Secondly, Messedrocker, can you say how you came to protect a page and then file an AfD on it that ChrisO is telling people he arranged? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested, not arranged. Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked fellow admins for views on this situation; Messedrocker proposed an AfD as a solution. It's a better way forward than having someone unilaterally impose their own solution without consensus. We're supposed to be a community, you know. This AfD will hopefully give the wider community the chance to form a consensus on the article. Wikipedia:Consensus should be our guide here. -- ChrisO 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put words in your mouth, Chris; I quoted you. "I've had the article AfD'd." Messedrocker doesn't say you requested it either. I wonder why you didn't do it yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He gets the credit for bringing it to my attention? I dunno... (messedrocker • talk) 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Basically he came on IRC and talked about this, and then I told him he should bring it to AFD as a compromise. Then I said I could do it. Now we're here. Let's hope something constructive comes of this. (messedrocker • talk) 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope this important discussion is not buried under a blizzard of personal attack. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, contingent on having the content restored to House demolition where it originally was. Keep. I am changing my vote to keep as it looks like that will be the best insurance that the material does not get suppressed. I agree with User:Dhartung that the last version before redirection looks OK. Marvin Diode 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I purposefully did not incorporate the original content into the rewritten House demolition because (1) it didn't deal adequately with the Israeli-Palestinian dimension and (2) incorporating a version that was adequate would grossly distort the article. It would end up 75% Israel-Palestine and 25% everything else. The topic is simply too big to be dealt with in one article. -- ChrisO 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The article currently redirect to house demolition, but should be redirected to the conflict article instead.--JForget 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and add the content to House demolition. Otherwise the content is both hidden and turns into yet another attack page, neither of which is encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the crux of the issue. Why do you consider it an "attack page"? You seem to dislike the subject, rather than the content. -- ChrisO 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I disliked it; on the contrary, it's important and shouldn't be hidden away on yet another demonization page. What I do dislike, Chris, is your seeming inability to paraphrase comments accurately. I also dislike people who challenge every comment in AfDs, and people who go on IRC to manipulate opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"demonization page"? Please ease up on the hyperbole. "manipulate opinion"? Oh, the irony. --Timeshifter 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your likes and dislikes of other editors out of this discussion, and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per ChrisO. The subject of House demolitions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clearly notable. Merging the material back into House demolition would make that article unwieldly. I would like to request that an admin restore a non-empty version of the page (which is now protected) so that people participating in this debate can see the article without trawling through the page history. The suggestion that this is an attack article is false. The article can not be descibed as one sided and contain the Israli authorities arguments justifying house demolitions. The article is actually an unusal example of cooperation between Israelis and Arabs pro and anti Zionists. But yesterday the editors who have been adding the pro-demolishion view have decided to blank and redirect the article. Before this artcle was created, some of these editors were actully removing content on the Israeli Palestinian conflict from House demolition with comments suggesting that this article is created and the content is moved there. Now that the article has been created and a fair amount of work done on it, they have started blanking the article and replacing it with a redirect back to the main article! This was done without even bringing the question of redirect up on the article's talk page. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this deletion debate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep No one actually believes the content on the page should be deleted outright. The nom was just procedural in order to get discussion going. The question of whether to merge and redirect or keep separate is determined through talk page discussion and an RfC if needed, not through AfD. nadav (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic! I don't know what policy is on these matters, but I've created an alternative version of this page here and would welcome comments. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per SlimVirgin. Beit Or 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork and name too long to be a useful redirect. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is about as POV as these things get (which is saying something when it comes to Israel/Palestine). Anything neutral and usable can go into House demolition or articles about the conflict in general. IronDuke 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not redirect. The last version before redirecting provides a sound basis for an article. There is nothing inherently POV in the article title and while the article requires more information on why and when Israel has implemented the policy to provide balance to the article this is not grounds for deletion even under the guise of a redirect. There is far too much material to be just within the main House demolition article. Davewild 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable subject and well referenced. Well worthy of it's own article as agreed upon earlier. // Liftarn
• Strong keep A POV fork is an article specifically written to discuss one point of view on an issue. An article on "Palestinian views of house demolition" or "International condemnation of Israeli demolitions" would be a POV fork.Eleland 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep House demolition is a significant issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and deserves its own article. It needn't be POV provided extensive weight is given to the Israeli perspective.Nwe 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to House demolition which includes all the information that was present in the original article. The legal debates or means of execution in the Israeli case are not different than the other cases mentioned (for example, the Soviet-Afghan War). --Gabi S. 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to correct you there. When I rewrote House demolition I removed all of the content that was later re-used by another editor to create House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. House demolition does not include all the information that was present in the original article. Restoring that content to House demolition would greatly unbalance the article, giving undue weight to one particular instance of house demolition. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant but definite keep and do not redirect. Reluctant because the early versions of this article were a nauseating apology for an immoral and unacceptable practice, one of the worst examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The current (pre-redirect) version is much better, but still has a nasty flavour of justifying the indefensible. However that is not a reason for deleting the article, as the POV can be corrected in the course of time. It should remain a separate article, as otherwise it is likely to overwhelm the House demolition article. No doubt in time Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc will have their own "House demolitions in ..." sub-articles. --NSH001 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Operation Murambatsvina, which is the de facto equivalent for Zimbabwe. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Gabi S. Jaakobou 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Jaakobou, why did you say only three days ago that you think that the subject is worth its own article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you "father of ali" for wikistalking me (you really want to reopen "the old fude"?), you can read my reply here, enjoy the read. Jaakobou 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Jaakabou recreated this article with the comment "i figure it's worth it's own article." just 2 days ago. Maybe he did this without thinking. PalestineRemembered 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Gabi S. --Shuki 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect another attack page dedicated to Israel. Can be easily integrated into the main House demolition article. Noon 23:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Almost everybody agrees that the content should be kept. The suggestion that this should be merged into general House demolition is not viable, as this section would dominate the article, overwhelm any other examples or issues, and almost certainly lead ro proposals to reduce this aspect. Let's keep the existing structure, and work to produce a good article on this issue. RolandR 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article is too long to put back in House demolition. It is a typical spinout article. Spinout articles are covered by Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Here is a link to the last full version of the article. In my opinion the calls for redirects are mostly attempts to censor the issue. Mostly by many of the same people I have seen doing similar things elsewhere. See this quote from w:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy (emphasis added): "Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." There are some caveats, of course. But most of those calling for redirects are basically trying to bury the material in another article, and thus make it less relevant and useful. They can dress it up, and try to say the article is not NPOV. But I see it as NPOV now. If they really think it is not NPOV enough, then the correct thing to do is make it more NPOV, not bury it. Why is it an attack article? Then are articles about Palestinian suicide bombers attack articles? Is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an attack article on Palestinians? No, it is not. --Timeshifter 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content before the recent deletion and protection was well souced, and an adequate separate topic. Though it has occurred elsewhere, its use in this conflict is certainly notable &Y madeheavy use of in political argumentation Those who think it in fact justified should just make sure that sources from all viewpoints are used. DGG 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect yet another fork of this subject matter. I don't see why this deserves such a higher level of detail than the rest of the project, which is after all called "Wikipedia", and not "Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia". Tewfik^Talk 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia"? More hyperbole from Tewfik.--Timeshifter 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is what its called. Tewfik^Talk 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. We should include as many details as we can find in reliable sources on any topic. We have featured articles on obscure figures from thousands of years ago. Surely we can allow this topic to be covered in depth as well. nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with in-depth coverage, au-contraire, that is exactly what we are here for. Rather I don't like what seems to me to be the creation of a separate hierarchy that consistently focuses on discussing one part of a specific conflict. While their creators may be well-intentioned and talk about how the same detail can be dedicated to other aspects or other subjects, they usually aren't. Even if every entry is kept neutral (something that gets difficult when so many articles are involved and more are constantly created), the sum is still problematic, if not nonneutral. Tewfik^Talk 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to have articles that focus on specific parts of specific things? Isn't that what an encyclopaedia is for? —Ashley Y 05:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no reason why it would focus on a country by country basis, is there? The article certainly doesn't, which is why it is so upsetting to certain editors. This WP:POVFORK is not an expansion on any specific section in the article; rather, it is a re-framing of the content to promote a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many spinout (WP:SPINOUT) articles created for the Iraq War. Why should the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be any different? It seems to me that you are seeking special treatment of that conflict in an attempt to bury aspects of it that you don't want discussed in WP:NPOV, encyclopedic detail. You have been part of similar blank/merge/redirect attempts concerning this conflict. --Timeshifter 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things are spun out from an article when the article or section gets too large; the article wasn't large, and which section was this "spun out" from? Name the section, and explain how it was "spun out". In fact, it was simply a copy of the article from a week before, as I have shown before; a clear WP:POVFORK. As for your argument, it's quite obvious you simply do not want actions taken by Israel to be placed in any larger context, but which to have a narrowly focussed POV instead. That's also the reason you recruited votes added this discussion to the Palestine board, but not the Israel one. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the main point farther down. Posting a notice about a deletion review in project pages and their notice boards is normal. There are many WP:NPOV members who have joined both projects. So it is not canvassing. Tewfik is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. I am a member of it and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. And in any case WP:CANVAS allows telling a few people. --Timeshifter 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all members of Project:Palestine edit from a pro-Palestinian POV, as you well know. Prevarication is unhelpful, please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I edit from a neutral POV. It is called WP:NPOV. From watching your edits over time, I believe you have a strong POV. So maybe you are projecting onto others. In other words, because you may have a strong POV, you assume most others do, too. "Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility. --Timeshifter 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you claim to edit from a neutral POV. That's amusing at best, or perhaps a sign of a deeper issue. Regardless, Wikipedia isn't therapy. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it sometime. WP:NPOV is very therapeutic. --Timeshifter 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article per ChrisO. It's a sensible spinout article and too large for house demolition. —Ashley Y 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. POV-fork. If delete fails, then keep as a Re-direct; all material must be kept in context. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively accepted the idea of having an article explore this much discussed topic in depth. Can you explain why you see the very idea of having such an article as a POV fork? nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why the material could not be integrated into the proper section in the House demolition article. The article was initially turned into an article discussing only House demolitions in Israel: [11] On June 17 editors broadened the article so that it dealt with the whole topic of House demolition in a comprehensive way, eventually ending up with this version. User:Abu ali got upset that it no longer focussed solely on Israel, so he created a POV fork [12] that only talked about Israel - it is, in fact, the version of the article from June 16, before the article was broadened to deal with all house demolitions. Taking an old version of an article you prefer, and re-creating it under a new title, is the very definition of a WP:POVFORK. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an obvious, legitimate "spinout" article. See WP:SPINOUT: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a 'spinout' or 'spinoff' of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the 'spinning out' is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." --Timeshifter 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Did you even read the comments you were responding to? The article was hardly lengthy, and which section was it "spun out" from? Show me which one. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Here is the June 23, 2007 House demolition article just before Abu Ali spunout the other article. Here is the spinout article when Abu Ali created and tweaked it on June 23, 2007. All the info in the expanded spinout article was too much to put in House demolition. --Timeshifter 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of the House demolition article did he take that from? Name it please. Which material did he remove from the House demolition article to put in that fork? Show me the diff please. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point. He had so much material that he did not have room for it in the first article. --Timeshifter 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would he know, if it was never in there in the first place? In fact, his "spin out" article was simply a copy of the version of the article from June 16, under a different name. Your prevarication is unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility, O great admin, Jayjg. I looked at the article at the point that it was spun off. All else you wrote of is your reading and interpretation of tea leaves in the history revisions. --Timeshifter 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article created on the 23rd was identical to the House demolition article of the 16th. No material was removed from the House demolition article on the 23rd to create the WP:POVFORK. You still fail to address that, and it's not a violation of WP:CIVIL to point out that your many statements are at odds with the truth. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what happened before. His decision to create a spinout article on June 23 was correct. Because on June 23 he had too much material to put it into, or back into, the article that existed on June 23. --Timeshifter 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The main reason I agreed with spinning it off was to prevent the general "House demolitions" page from placing undue weight on Israel's particular use of house demolitions, a relatively recent thing in the ancient history of the subject. Even fringe topics (which this is not) get their own articles if they are sufficiently notable, but should not receive undue weight in the main article. The example in the undue weight policy is Flat Earth theory, which is barely mentioned in Earth (and most certainly does not have its own section), but for which there are enough sources to justify having a free-standing article. Whatever Abu Ali said when originally supporting the article is not too relevant. We can all work together on ensuring the article is NPOV, just like we do on other controversial topics. nadav (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. It's certainly big enough and notable enough to stand on its own as a separate article. —Ashley Y 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no convincing claim made that the House demolition article is long enough to require a WP:POVFORK, and certainly not one that serves to promote a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple math. Add the length of the 2 articles in their current form, and you see that putting them together would create a much longer article with undue weight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The spinout article seems WP:NPOV to me. If it does not seem that way to you, then add more sourced material to make it so.--Timeshifter 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it "spun out" from? Please give the specific diff which shows the material being removed by Abu ali from House demolition. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been spun out from the original article, his head, his friends, his muse, his guardian angels, etc.. Who knows. It doesn't matter where it came from. If it was too much to add to the original article, then it needed to be spun off. --Timeshifter 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, could you please explain this edit [[13], particulaly the comment? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's edit summary is interesting: "too detailed and specific for here; perhaps it belongs in House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." So in that June 27, 2007 diff Jayjg removes info from the House demolition article, and recommends putting it in the spinout article. Then on June 29 Jayjg helps blank and redirect the spinout article. This is not the first time that Jayjg has tried to inappropriately delete an article. This time he used blanking and a redirect in order to inappropriately delete an article without going through an AFD. Concerning an AFD for another article, Israel-United States military relations, Jayjg interfered with a closing admin in an attempt to inappropriately delete the article. See this and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26.

Let's stay on topic. Jayjg's past editing history is not germane. I am curious maybe about why he changed his mind about this particular article, but everything else is irrelevant. nadav (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it does show the good faith or rather the lack of good faith of some of those who support the redirect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, I was subsequently convinced that the article was an unhelpful POV-fork, based on argumentation from others, and a review of the article history. Now, please listen to Nadav1, follow policy, and focus on issues germane to this AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, it might perhaps have been better if I'd moved the original House demolition article to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the content was entirely focused on that issue, and then created a brand new article on house demolition. In any case, what we have here is an overview article describing the general use of house demolition, and a spinout article describing the specific use of the tactic in a particular conflict, comparable to how Eastern Front (World War II) deals in depth with a topic summarised in World War II. -- ChrisO 09:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the many spinoff articles linked from the Iraq War, and many more found here: Category:Years in Iraq. Click the plus (+) signs to see the many subcategories. See also: Template:Iraq War. Many angles are covered by many spinout articles. WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter 09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - another attempt to turn WP into a battleground. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. There is an attempt to keep this material out of Wikipedia altogether by saying it's too specific for House demolition but a POV-fork if spun out into its own article. This is all the more astonishing when one takes into account that the preponderance of RS-material on house demolitions focuses on Israel-Palestine. As I wrote on the talk page of the first House demolition article:

  A search on Google Books [3] for all books containing the phrase "house demolitions" yielded 299 results. I went through the first 50 by hand, so to speak. 48 of these 50 sources focused on Israel-Palestine. Of the two exceptions, one was a passage in Pragmatic Women and Body Politics which mentioned house demolition as one of various punitive measures the goverment of China has used against families who don't comply with the one-child policy; the other was a passage in a book on urban planning (Planning and the Heritage: policy and procedures) which lamented the loss of "stately country homes" in the aftermath of World War II. In other words, 48 of 50 sources checked dealt with house demolition by this article's definition, as a counter-insurgency tactic, and all 48 focused exclusively on the tactic as a component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fully expected that most RS material on the tactic of house demolitions would focus on Israel-Palestine, but I was surprised to discover that the phrase itself seems to be almost exclusively associated with that conflict.
  
  I also did two Lexis-Nexis searches, one for "house demolitions" + terrorism, and one for "house demolitions" + insurgency. The latter produced 49 citations, 47 of which focused exclusively on Israel-Palestine. The former produced 248 citations; again I hand-checked the first 50. Of these 50, only two discussed anything other than Israel-Palestine. Because the pattern was so overwhelmingly clear, I did not see the need to hand-check the remainder, or to try other search permutations. I realize however that not everyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, and I'll gladly perform other relevant searches at the request of other editors.
  
  It should be emphasized that all of the book sources, and almost all of the newspaper sources, addressed house demolitions as a highly controversial practice.

Following some serious and impressive research, ChrisO has found enough scholarly and historical material to create an article on the general phenomenon of House demolition through time. The result is superb and we should all be grateful for it. That article in its present state would be overwhelmed by adding the material on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue for which the literature is independently massive. There are three compelling reasons to treat this topic separately: 1) The RS's that write about it treat it separately, not comparatively or historically. 2) Demolitions in the I/P conflict are sui generis insofar as they comprise both military demolitions citing security and punitive reasons, and "civil" demolitions citing lack of permit. The preponderance of RS's treat these collectively as a single phenomenon within the Israel-Palestine conflict (where security and demography are so inextricably intertwined). In most (if not all) other contexts, on the other hand, civil and military demolitions are widely perceived and treated by RS's as separate and unrelated phenomena, and revising the mandate of House demolition to include both would make it truly enormous, a shapeless and baggy monster covering everything from eminent domain to counterinsurgency. 3) Because so very much has been written about demolitions in the I/P conflict, adding it to House demolition would overwhelm that article. Separate articles, each cross-linked, makes eminent sense and has all the RS precedent anyone could ask for. --G-Dett 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per ChrisO and G-Dett. There is no reason we cannot have both an article on the general subject of home demolitions and an article on their use specifically in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is more than enough material from reliable sources on the latter to justify an article. And there is no reason the article could not be neutral. Editors who believe the material is not presented in a neutral way should make an attempt to fix the article rather than blank or delete it. Analogous articles exist which focus on specific Israeli grievances, one example is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanguinalis 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and a good example. I'm seeing a lot of "makes Israel look bad, therefore POV/attack page" arguments. —Ashley Y 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per ChrisO, G-Dett, and others. Interesting point by Sanguinalis about Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- some of the same people who are opposing the existence of this article have edited the other and appear to be quite comfortable with its existence. Anyway, no need for me to repeat arguments eloquently stated above. Organ123 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per others. Though the article needs some improvements.Bless sins 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and Keep. I think PalestineRemembered said it best: "We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic!" I am making no comment on the validity or neutrality of the content represented in any particular version, but I fully support the notion that a separate article should exist to describe this important topic, as it specifically applies to the Israeli-Palestinian case, along with the controversy that surrounds it. There is too much to this topic to simply merge it into the main House demolition article, and the remainder that isn't covered by that summary is by no means unimportant or irrelevant, nor should it be excluded from Wikipedia for any reason. LordAmeth 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already an article devoted to the Zimababwe government's house demolitions, and one on British "dehousing" in WWII, so this would not be the first. nadav (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment much of the information kept out of the main entry was on content grounds, not length, and it is just as challenged on the subarticle. I believe everyone would agree that a subarticle is necessary if/when the material becomes too long, but that is not currently the case. Tewfik^Talk 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tewfik that length is not the issue, not yet anyway. The issue is that these are organically separate topics. Wikipedians may want to situate house demolition in the I/P conflict comparatively and historically, but the reliable sources by and large have not done this. There seems to be some confusion here about what a POV-fork is. Slavery in the United States is not a POV-fork of Slavery, because the independently voluminous literature on the former does not, by and large, treat it as a sub-topic of the latter; it does not talk about America's "peculiar institution" in the context of ancient Babylonia or the contemporary sex trade. Now, by contrast, if I start making copious and tendentious additions to the "Jefferson and Slavery" subsection of William Jefferson, and editors object on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE grounds, and I respond by creating a new article William Jefferson and Slavery, so that my hobby horse may graze and gallop with solipsistic abandon, that's a POV-fork. The dead giveaway and sine qua non of a POV-fork is that it treats as a discrete topic that which reliable sources treat as an inseparable component of something larger. If there is a larger topic for reliable sources in the present case, that larger topic is very clearly the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hence the entirely appropriate title of this entirely appropriate article.--G-Dett 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Yes, house demolition has become a hot issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it can be argued that it deserves its own section in the house demolition article. However, the topic simply isn't broad or encyclopedic enough to merit its own article and I fear that its own article will be turn into nothing more than an attack page: every house demolition will be cited by Israel's enemies and Israel's arguments for house demolitions will either become redundant or be cited once at the bottom of the page. --GHcool 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's justifications of House Demolitions was given prominent coverage in every version of this article. So GHcool's argument for removing the content of the article is based on speculation as to how the article may develop in the future. This is certainly a novel agrument for a deletion debate. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Without commenting on the content of the article itself, it makes sense to me that there is a general article on house demolition as a military tactic and then separate articles on each important conflict where it is used. I would suggest reducing the information on this particular conflict in the main article once it is spun off. --Peter cohen 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a sensible suggestion. There's already too much prominence given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the main article - it has more coverage than World War II, which is crazily disproportionate. -- ChrisO 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect obviously a POV fork of House demolition that is poorly sourced. Topic isn't notable enough to have its own article, and only presents one viewpoint.--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't notable? You do realise that one of the major Israeli anti-occupation groups is named "Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions"? I think that's a clue that this is fairly important issue in the conflict... —Ashley Y 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the article poorly sourced? It contains 15 references. And the statement that the article "only presents one viewpoint" is also false, it quotes Israeli propogandist Shmuel Katz and Yaacov Lozowick who justify house demolitions, the Israeli army's own justifications, the Israeli high court decsions as well as the views of groups such as Amnesty International and the Israeli committee against house demolition which oppose demolitions. Have you actually read the article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before the spinout it was discussed and agreed upon at Talk:House demolition#Deletion of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. // Liftarn
• Strong keep Deleting this notable article would be like deleting Lynching in Ramallah and hundreds of other Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related articles. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the entry that was forked from, al Aqsa Intifada, is quite long, while this forking from the short House demolition was not on grounds of length, but content. Tewfik^Talk 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, that's not so - I specifically removed the detailed Israeli-Palestinian content from House demolition on the grounds of length, because it would have given disproportionate coverage to one particular conflict within what's supposed to be an overview article. -- ChrisO 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wandalstouring 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject. Everyking 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of [14] W.marsh 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Shepherd[edit]

Keith Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also nominating Harvest Fields. Probable WP:COI here, creator removed CSD A7 tag. east.718 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: I'm begining to think that there is an unhealthy bias to the articles I posted since they were some how nom. for del. even before I finished submitting them. Rhabdo Sidera 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Your articles are the only thing with an unhealthy bias, what with phrases like "On the best of days, one could find the this enigmatic wayfarer prayerfully charting the little known courses of the biblical languages, or ardently perusing the country lanes of Jutland". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhabdo, every article should include references to show notability. If you can produce same over the next few days, good. If you can't, then I suggest you do give more thought to the topics you write about. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Rubbish!!! I just queried Dan Brown and there is a rather huge bigraphy on him. Rhabdo Sidera 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(No !voting twice) Is this author as successful or well-known as Dan Brown? — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until I see any evidence of reliably sourced notability to meet WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per major failure of WP:BK WP:BIO. The On Your Mark book is self-published (see here, from which page this article is a straight copy-and-paste). The other two apparently exist only as e-books. No evidence of significant third-party coverage. Deor 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability shown by attribution to reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as copyvio per Deor. --Charlene 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• no proven notability, article way, way substandard. delete Kripto 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by David Fuchs with reason "was deleted previously, still short and nocontest" (presumably G7). Tevildo 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Fields[edit]

Harvest Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very little context, not notable. Probably belongs in CSD. east.718 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per db-nocontext; also does not assert notability. Google provides no evidence that this "project" even exists except for one statement by Keith Shepherd, its "initiator and maintainer," whose article is also the subject of an AfD. Deor 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone needs to take a look at Linguistic keying systems, created by the same author, too. I'd judge it to be borderline nonsense, at best. Deor 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Got it. east.718 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no context and it doesn't seem to be notable anyways.--JForget 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloly Blog[edit]

Bloly Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very little context. Google returns no notable hits except for sites that index freeware. east.718

I do not undarstand why you remore it? Why other blog system descriptions can be published, but bloly blog - can not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bposter (talk • contribs)

• Delete; no assertion of notability. Clicking on the link at the bottom of the project home page gives me a message describing the page as "still under construction", so I'll take it at its word. (As a side note to the author, obfuscating the source code to an open-source PHP script is exceedingly silly.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you want to see how it works? Here are a lot of examples. Honestly, I do not understand what you are talking about. As for obfuscating - let author decide how to write scripts, Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bposter (talk • contribs) — Bposter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, no independent and reliable sources attesting to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, article is essentially an advertisement.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable unverified advertorial. I urge the creating editor to not take this nomination to heart, but to read the key guidelines and policies instead. Adrian M. H. 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laragh mc cann[edit]

Laragh mc cann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, seems like an advertisement. east.718 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, looks like it was written by a fan or something--JForget 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or improve the notability assertion within the article. I've also tagged another article by the same author for cleanup/references. --Sigma 7 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Kripto 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes in Ukraine[edit]

Red Army crimes in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One more POV pushing essay of an extremely angry Commie-hater who cannot be convinced by many people in similar votes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, ..in Georgia and ..in Estonia that this is a wrong way to write encyclopedia. `'Miikka 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why you placed this article not in a historical but science chapter for deleting starting from my article [about red bandits crimes in Lithuania placing in HISTORY chapter? Are you trying to hide systematic attack on category Red Army crimes?Ttturbo 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and a warning to the user who keeps creating them. If not, we'll soon see Red Army crimes in the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely useless, as some of it may be mentionned in the Red Army article anyways--JForget 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree article is useless, this kind of information can be in Red Army article and possibly in a general spin off if necessary, but definitely not individual articles on Ukraine, Estonia, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete this needs to go per Acroterion. Excellent example of POV and possibly original research as well. Rackabello 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Acroterion, though I would have used "Red Army Crimes in Reichskommissariat Moskowien". After all, he is accusing the Red Army of the heinous crime of putting actually Ukrainians in charge of Chernobyl. The way the author has responded to the first AfD by creating comparable articles and categories is disruptive, whether or not he does this to make deletion of his brainchilren difficult by creating links between them(="wiki bomb"?).--Pan Gerwazy 17:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP is not place for amateurish history of such poor quality. Pavel Vozenilek 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV-fork and disruption article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had PROD'ed it (for POV/OR problems) when I saw it in New-Articles...without knowing the whole "Red Army crimes in *" or creator's situation. The page itself seems by its very framing of the topic as a hopelessly POV content fork or spin on existing topics. Anything encyclopediac that has reliable sources should be in the pages about the specific groups/places/history. Until and unless there is enough material specific to Red Army crimes in a certain place, actual content more than just a chronological list, no need for that specific an article...even lists need justification and actual content in order to stand as their own article. DMacks 05:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tyler-Lewis[edit]

Kelly Tyler-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is being listed per the request of the subject - see OTRS ticket # 2007062910015362. Kelly wrote a book and won an Emmy for a documentary she directed. Other then that there is nothing to be said in the article. Right now it's a stub and there isn't any way to expand it past that point. Given that I think we should honor her request to delete the article outright (I've already stubbed to resolve privacy issues). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Winning the Emmy makes her notable Corpx 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know what her privacy concerns were, but all I see in the Google cached version are universities and institutions where she got degrees and funding, nothing intrusive. And an Emmy winner, even for documentaries, is notable. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Groggy, I see nothing here that could spark a privacy concern -- birth year (not date)? education? research-related travel? Obviously we're not here to discuss that as they've already been deemed out of bounds, and I'm sure that the content of the OTRS request is similarly private so we can't even know the concern. I have to express that this is exactly what has worried me about the new "on request" deletion policy. Skin out an article until it's pointless, then say there's no point to keeping, for someone who would normally be notable. There was a recent similar AFD for someone who is clearly dismissible as a crank. This subject doesn't come with any such baggage, just a polite "I don't want to be on Wikipedia", and I suppose that some will want to honor that request. But every time I see one of these I feel the bar being ratcheted upwards a nudge. Would Google honor a request not to turn up results? --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google has procedures to allow websites to be excluded from indexing... so in a manner of speaking, yes.

Anyway, we get these requests all the time we tell them no. Sometimes, they are truely non-notable and the article qualifies for a speedy. Sometimes it doesn't fit speedy and the article is borderline - so we let the community decide. Feel free to dismiss the fact that the subject has personally asked for the article to be deleted if thats how you feel. I just think in a borderline case we should give it at least a bit of consideration. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the merits of the Emmy. If it must be a stub, then let it be a stub. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree: having nothing to write is logically grounds for not having an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Isnt that what stubs are for? Corpx 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs are placeholders for articles that can be expanded, not for articles that will always be 3 sentences. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being nominated for 2 Emmys in one year is notable. Being part of a working group in Antarctica, while not notable in itself, adds to her notability. Also, if you Goggle her and get rid of the books, there is material to add to the article. So it can be expanded by editors. Vegaswikian 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Shows For Kids[edit]

List Of Shows For Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary list, original research Gilliam 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as purely original research. And what are "kids" in this definition anyway? Two-year-olds? Ten-year-olds? "Kids at heart" (like me)? Young goats? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix or Delete. If the article is renamed as List of Animated Television Shows most of those could stay or List of Sitcoms on Disney Channel, but it needs to be more objective. "For Kids" is completely subjective, I'm 23 and I watch half of those. But perhaps a List of Animated TV shows already exists on Wikipedia and the list is redundant and should be deleted. I'd take a longer look into this before deleting. Useight 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)deleteBold text[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate list with no known target audience. As TPH said, what are "kids" in this case, anyway? AND they don't even have LazyTown. Bastards.--Ispy1981 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - the Cosby Show is on this list! That makes it less a list of programmes made for children and more a list of things that children are capable of watching. Anyone who wasn't bred in a laboratory knows that's a big, big list. It's a subjective list of recommended viewing. And condescending too. Kripto 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOR, WP:NOT Rackabello 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oregongirl0407 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of East High Episodes[edit]

List Of East High Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverified and incomplete list. Gilliam 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is it an incomplete list, I can't verify that this show exists. No ghits, no IMDB entry. Nothing to assert notability.--Ispy1981 01:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly seems to be unverifiable. Definitely not notable. Adrian M. H. 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was piledrive. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestlers Dead From Non-Natural Causes[edit]

Pro Wrestlers Dead From Non-Natural Causes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged as a speedy deletion candidate, I removed the tag because it doesn't technically fit any of the CSD's. May have some merit, but we need to develop a consensus on this article. Rackabello 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no it's not necessary. Pure WP:TRIVIA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely trivial. Piledrive it and pin it with a 3-count. Wildthing61476 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme fire, why not Carpenters Dead From Non-Natural Causes, Wrestlers Dead From Natural Causes? Corvus cornix 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete The information can be sufficiently listed on their individual articles and on their respective wrestling organizations' articles. It also isn't a topic likely to have a heading in a regular encyclopedia -Barkeep 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what to where? How do you merge one article into several others, and what is there to merge here? Corvus cornix 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are also no sources cited, so that doesn't help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a three-axis list. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and propose WP:SNOWBALL. Seems to be we're all in agreement. No citations + three axis = POOF. This article is the answer to a question that nobody even asked. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this information can be already be found elsewhere Crazy4metallica 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balti wine[edit]

Balti wine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is dangerously close to being an advertisement. At the least it is promoting the product and or brand and is subject to WP:NPOV. Emana 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete "So far, the wine has proved popular with Indian restaurants. Over 700,000 bottles have been sold, at a price of £10 to £15 per bottle" this isn't dangerously close to being an advertisement, this definitely IS an advertisement. Also CSD A7 for no assertion of notability. Rampant POV issues Rackabello 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a speedy candidate. CSD G11 is reserved for truly blatant corporate spam, that sentence just strikes me as someone running out of things to put in the article. Furthermore, a cursory check via google hints that this article could be salvaged. —Xezbeth 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably IS salvageable but would probably end up being very bland. -- Emana 22:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I must be going soft or something, but this is probably worth keeping, pending a minor cleanup. The non-corporate, vaguely scientific involvement is one saving factor. Adrian M. H. 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a member of the Wine Project, I am right now neutral about the article because, to be quite frank, I've never heard of it before and I have sold my fair share of Indian wines. I agree that it currently speaks like an advertisement and I will work on that as I do a little more research. All I ask is that this AfD not be "speedily" close to give some time to see if this is truly worth saving or is a candidate to be merged in the still needing to be created Indian wine. If it needs to be merged, I'll at least start a stub of that article for the merging. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After reading more about the subject, I realize it wouldn't be appropriate to merge into a new Indian wine article since the grapes are Argentinian. I also see distinct notability in the wine with the distribution deals with a major airline and cruise line. The recent establishment of a distribution chain to the US will also substantially increase its notability in a short time frame. I have cleaned up the article a bit, replacing its weak sourcing with a more reliable major news source and also brought the language in line with a more NPOV, non-advert tone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edit. Still I tagged it with an ((orphan)) tag. I don't think having wide distribution makes it more notable. Has the sales of Balti wine have effects on anything else but the guy's wallet? I'd like to see facts like, "The first $1,000,000 in revenue of ABCD wine was used to erect a new chemistry lab at EDU University, which became the birth place of Penicillin". -- Emana 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole "pencillin" scenario is thankfully beyond the scope of the pertinent guideline of WP:CORP. In the wine world, distribution is notable because the more likely people are going to be exposed to the wine, the more likely they will want to read a wikipedia article about it. Unlike directly commercial products, like the Flowbee or Big Mac, wine also has a cultural component that extends far beyond just being a product to sell. Wine and food matching is popular topic and Balti wine is notable in being one of the few of wines to fill a niche in a popular area of ethnic cuisine. So while new "wonder drugs" might not be discovered because of this wine, in the world of "food and wine", this wine is an important first step in wine and food matching of Indian cuisine. It is a tad bit of systematic bias to chide the importance of that.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have nothing against Balti wine. I am just curious to know more about it and how it could become a more interesting article. The "penicillin" example was an extreme "good example" where there would be no questions to notability. I think we need more serious expertise from a contributor in the wine category. I've made comments about Balti not being Indian on its talk page. -- Emana 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just so you know, Agne is easily one of the most prolific and knowledgeable wine contributers on Wikipedia. I have no doubt that she's capable of giving "serious expertise" in any wine related discussion. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd keep the article, as it has a bit of notability in that it's a unique case, ie no other type of wine has been created specifically to be drunk with curry. Also, it seems widespread given the US disribution and airline deals. Having said that though, I don't think there's much more that can be said about it, without risk of turning the article into an advert for the product! --BodegasAmbite 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least until there's been enough time to assess the impact it has as a product, and hence its notability. Uniqueness is naturally going to make any product-based article appear promotional. Until there is a generic article for food-specific wines (or whatever), it should stay. One major point in its favour is that it apprears to have been written by a long-standing contributor here, so corporate spam it ain't. mikaul^talk 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not notable by typical Wikipedia standards IMHO. -Splitpeasoup 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Agne and mikaul. I think the article has a good deal of potential for expansion as interesting wine subject. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocropus[edit]

Ocropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pre-alpha software. —Psychonaut 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Rackabello 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but best wishes for the developer (a colleague of mine)—let's hope Ocropus is one day notable enough to be encyclopedic! :) —Psychonaut 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable software; crystal balling. -- Mikeblas 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JJL 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Google and the German University of Kaiserslautern are sponsoring its development. It's usable software right now; I run it on Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (Linux). 128.158.145.51 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's received coverage from Slashdot[15], Linux.com[16], and Ars Technica[17] among others. OCRopus is part of Google's Book scanning project. 128.158.145.51 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Googling "OCRopus OCR" gets 165,000 hits and there's a Digg story on it. The article could use some rewording in places, but it's a good article about a real software product. I don't see anything wrong with it. TMC1221 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's no crystal balling - it's already useable. And it's the best free software solution of it's kind, I think. The only thing that is useful for me on Linux. --Speck-Made 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things:

• The codebase is actually quite mature as is; it's called "pre-alpha" because (1) there are going to be significant (specific, known) API changes over the next 3-6 months, and (2) the project wants developers and contributors right now, not a lot of end users. Additionally, keep in mind that the code is for high-volume document conversion, where the requirements are a lot tougher than for desktop OCR libraries, so the releases are named more conservatively.
• When we tested it, OCRopus performed better than all other open source OCR systems on standard datasets. It's probably the best open source OCR system you can get for English right now.
• While Wikipedia is no crystal ball, the project plan is a kind of crystal ball and can be found at http://www.ocropus.org/ ; the beta release is expected Q1 2008, and the project is on schedule.

So, the project is working, and it's here to stay. People will probably want information on it, and it seems to me that it's something Wikipedia should cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarnelian (talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 July 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect (and merge where nessecary) to Bill Simmons. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Simmons[edit]

Kari Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm a big fan of Bill Simmons' columns (on a tangentially related note, his article is severe need of a cleanup) and I got a few laughs out of his wife beating him in NFL picks, but is she really that notable? Aside from the aformentioned NFL picks, reviewing The Bachelor DVDs doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO and the article is lacking in reliable sources. I'd say merge, but any relevant info is probably already in her husband's article anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to her husband's article. Semi-notable but not really important enough for an article, and doing a bio verges on WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, merging content as necessary. Adrian M. H. 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe this article should stay. She was a big hit with her articles and had lots of fans. (Viewport 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Yeah, but "popularity" isn't an indicator of notabilty - where are the reliable sources written about her? And no, her husband's columns do not count. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to her husband's article. As the article's original author, I think this is the best course of action right now. I created the article when ABC (National TV Network) hired her for The Bachelor reviews (not the DVDs, though. She reviewed the shows the day after they aired), as it seemed she was gaining wider recognition, possibly beyond the internet-space; but if she indeed won't be writing anymore, it is unlikely that her notability would grow. Some info may be able to be used on her husband's page though. NeWDaC 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join The 10,000[edit]

Join The 10,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod dropped with no comment. This is a drive for the Red Cross to recruit in Tennessee. While I'm sure this is a very good campaign, it is also non notable as I can find only one (borderline) reliable source - an online news paper. I have added it to the article. If this succeeds and this becomes a notable campaign, then the article can be recreated. That would be good for the RedCross of Tennesse. Until then, Wikipedia is not the place to publicise good causes. Also the logo is only used on this page, it can go if this goes.Obina 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Rackabello 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, promotional and unencyclopedic. The TN Red Cross falls under WP:ORG, and even a national campaign should almost always be covered by the national charity's article instead of separately. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, with promotional bias (albeit for more altruistic reasons than usual). Adrian M. H. 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garin Burbank[edit]

Garin Burbank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a professor who has no particular importance. I don't think this article could be expanded and is a stub of a rather obscure and unimportant individual. JGGardiner 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability... also a borderline CSD G11 for being a vanity page . Being a professor in it of itself is not notable Rackabello 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Unless some of these claims can be verified. Shouldn't have listed this as a speedy, I initially got the impression that this was a vanity page Rackabello 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails academics test.Obina 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete , see below. Weak Keep, certainly not a speedy-- saying someone is a professor at a major university is a clear assertion of notability--I've declined the speedy. As for actual notability, I need to check on publications etc.--can the nom. tell me where he looked to conclude he was of no particular importance so I don't duplicate? If there was ever a non-vanity page, this is it--it doesn't even list all the publications!! Vanity pages for faculty typically list everything down to minor conference presentations, and awards back to their high school days. If it turns out that the book mentioned is the only book, then it would be non-notable. DGG 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I pretty looked hard (for an internet search) but could only find the one book and relatively little else actually. He has no page at the university. A search of his university's library catalogue is here[18] It only shows the one book. A few articles, commentaries and speeches as well. I checked Library of Congress and it just turns up the one book. Praeger, which published that book has only it listed in their catalogue online. I checked JSTOR, booksellers. I'm not sure where else I'd look. --JGGardiner 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, he does have a page at the university, here[19]. It mentions only the one book. --JGGardiner 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless independent sources for notability are found. Google News Archive has some results ... apparently, for his high-school baseball career. Nothing on his book(s), though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added what I could find on the web, except for several book reviews he wrote and i don't think there will be much else, except for citations of his major book. He's the previous generation that doesn't have a web page, but I am not sure how much more would be on it. The University of Winnipeg is not a research university in any sense. Judging from the wikipedia entry, it's an urban undergraduate commuter college, greatly overshadowed by the University of Manitoba, of which it was once a part. Even full professors at such colleges are not necessarily notable.

In this case, he has written one important book, and little else. That's probably not enough, though the book might be separately notable. I cannot document later right-wing political activity as presented in the article--that is a little odd. Perhaps something will turn up as the Afd continues it's full time.DGG 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has significant publications in his field. Dogru144 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the WP:PROF test. semper fictilis 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. He does fail the WP:PROF test. GreenJoe 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Needs a bit of work but consensus... Non admin closure. Qst 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dres[edit]

Dres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article apparently created to disparage an entire group of people, no sources. Corvus cornix 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD G10, as an attack page, also even if this is a subculture, no assertion of notability or sources Rackabello 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if further sources found to show it is not a neologism. If there is POV, the article can be edited.DGG 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term is simular to the terms Spide (NI), Chav(UK), Ned (Scotland) etc.. In fact there is a list of them all on Scanger (ROI) including many other nationalities. Admittedly the article is not well referenced, but it should not be deleted just yet.--Greatestrowerever 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Redneck. Sometimes dresiarz means ochraniacz - a bodyguard wearing suit. greg park avenue 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep pending further sources to demonstrate notability and verify the claims. If none can be found, it might still be worth merging it into a parent article about such terms unless it is clearly a neologism. It cannot be classed as an attack page. Adrian M. H. 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable subculture in Poland, article needs improvement but its no reason for deletion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE JodyB _talk 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (cereal)[edit]

Monopoly (cereal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Limited time promotional cereal from a few years ago, not much more than a sentence on it, no assertion of notability, fails WP:STUB. Maybe merging to General Mills might be appropriate, but I'm not sure Rackabello 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, at best worth a mention in Monopoly game#Spinoffs. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let's wait until Gilliganfanactic has his or her say on this. I note that the list went up at 20:24 and Rackabello tagged it for deletion at 20:26. Faster than the Kentucky Derby! Although Racky is a little bit fast on the trigger, I would tend to agree that an article about a cereal that's well past its expiration date (came out in 4/03) does fail WP:N or however you say "not notable". However, I have incorporated the information into another article on Wikipedia... one whose name I dare not write, as part of the Wikipedianess Protection Program. Mandsford 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight merge to General Mills, maybe Monopoly as well.--JForget 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monopoly, mention on General Mills. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cinnamon Toast Crunch. The primary author of article claims it is essentially similar to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but with the "edition of marshmellows" (sic). I'll have to take that on faith - never tried the stuff. If the Cinnamon Toast Crunch article keepers can tolerate adding mention of a variation of their beloved cereal with marshmallows added, then they can blend it in. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock Hall[edit]

Comstock Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN college residence hall Rackabello 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This college dormitory isn't more notable than any other dorm. Darkspots 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, precedent demands that dormitories have some notability separate from the institution, e.g. historic structure designation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now if it was "Dot Comstock" Hall, that would have been a good pun, but it's a dorm on a branch campus of the University of (read the article if you actually care). Mandsford 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The building isn't all that notable within the University of Minnesota Minneapolis East Bank campus. It isn't notable architecturally, and it isn't notable for any significant events that happened there. Coffman Memorial Union is notable for its function and its use of the Moderne style, while the nearby Weisman Art Museum is notable for being a Frank Gehry-designed building that really caused a stir among Twin Cities architecture critics. Northrop Mall, Northrop Auditorium, and University of Minnesota Old Campus Historic District are also notable buildings on the campus. The residence halls aren't. (Neither is Jackson Hall, either.) I'll stop being long-winded and put in a delete opinion. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The closest that it gets to notability is being commandeered for a while by the armed forces, but I imagine that this happened to plenty of otherwise non-notable buildings in the U.S. (as it did in Britain). Adrian M. H. 20:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the building might not have had a major historical event occur it in the entry itself appears to be beneficial to those who would inquire about it. Remember that Wikipedia is not meant to be limited in ways such as size that other paper-based encyclopedias might be. It does no harm in keeping it. Notability is opinion-based; Dick Clark for example is just and man that had a TV show in the past to some. There isn't any need to delete that entry.--128.101.166.6 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.